AMEER HAMZA vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 304, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an F.I.R. at Police Station Qaboola Sharif, District Pakpattan. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of the petitioner to post-arrest bail in view of conflicting police investigations, the attribution of a role under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and allegations of abscondence and trial delay. The Lahore High Court held that notwithstanding disputes regarding the applicability of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the petitioner was admittedly connected to an offense under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and further noted that the accused party contributed to trial delays. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application while directing the trial court to conclude the trial within two months.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when an accused is charged with an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a plea of self-defense and conflicting police investigation reports entitle an accused to bail under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What is the effect of previous abscondence and causing delay in the trial on a post-arrest bail application?
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.--- The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in F.I.R No.190/04, dated 21-5- 2004, under sections 304, 324, 148 and 149 PPC. The said F.I.R. Was registered at P.S. Qaboola Sharif, District Pakpattan.
2. Briefly according to the F.I.R. Co-accused Sajid Iqbal fired a shot with 12-bore gun which hit Muhammad Sarwar son of the complainant in his chest, who died at the spot. After hearing the firing, Qasim Ali another son of the complainant came out, who was fired upon by the petitioner with his .12-bore gun. Qasim Ali son of the complainant was hit on right ribs, arms and other parts of his body.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the investigation, the petitioner was placed in column No.2 and one Anwar was found guilty. In the second investigation, DSP also concluded that Anwar had killed the deceased instead of petitioner. It was also concluded during the investigation that the petitioner had fired in his self-defence. Another investigation followed, by which, it was concluded that the petitioner had committed an offence covered under section 324 PPC instead of 302, P.P.C.
4. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, the petitioner was arrested on 28-6-2005 and in all investigations he was found guilty in offence under section 324 PPC and he also remained absconder for one year. The learned counsel submitted that order-sheet of the trial court indicates that the accused party is causing delay in the conclusion of the trial.
5. I have heard that learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
6. Though there is dispute whether the petitioner is involved in offence under section 302 PPC or not, however, there is no dispute that he committed offence covered by . Section 324, P.P.C. A which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The cause of the delay is also attributed to the accused party by the learned trial court. Therefore, for the above reasons, this bail application is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to make effort to complete the trial within next two months.
Cited by 1 case
- AZEEM SARWAR vs The STATE 2015 P Cr. L J 355